AARHE: Phase 2: Neutrals

What do you think about implementing respectively national adventeges  from 1941 spring (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 2.0)  to the 1942 2ed?

Especialy together with a initialy proposed by Larry Harris new setup.

I think, especialy the Soviet –Japan non aggression treaty would make the game a lot more historical correct.

If you think it would be accepteble the problem is German Scientists national idea is not implementabe to the 1943 2ed, since in 1942 2ed there is no weapon development, so  I think, it could be replaced by Fortress Europe (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 1.3) or some national ideas from Mr. Andersson’s House Rules for Axis & Allies Revised v1.1

Personaly I woul prefer using one or two of national ideas per country, if using this national idea would not destroy the game balance  at all.

Also I do not know, wheter the Panzerblitz national idea:

(Panzerblitz THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE 38 DEFENDERS. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.)

means, that the tank can move not only to a friendly  territory (due to the standard non combat movement rules), but also to enemy controlled (but not enemy occupied territory).

What is correct understanding of it?

I am also afraid, that the Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber national idea:

(EUROPE WAS BLITZED AND BOMBED. THE JU-87 STUKA DIVE-BOMBER, A SMALL PLANE, PLAYED A BIG ROLE. ITS SCREAMING SIREN GENERATED TERROR ON ALL BATTLE FRONTS. Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs. They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal. In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only. Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat. In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally. If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is cancelled.)

can make, that the odds in potential intitial G1 battle in West Russia can get slightly towards Germany, but I did not check it out precisely yet.

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

The “Propaganda value and spread of communism” NO from the rulebook says:
3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.

Replace that with this:

Red Spread
3 IPCs for each originally German or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union Controls, and for each of the following when at war on the Europe map: Novgorod, Volgograd, Moscow.

AA42 neutral rules:

Procedure: roll ONE D6 for each IPC= consult chart below. Until you conquer the nation it is an ally of your enemy but they don’t collect IPC. Only direct occupation and conquest awards IPC to the player. Each turn these activated nations can build new units according to its own capacity ( so if its a 1 IPC area, it takes 3 turns to build one infantry) and place one unit of any type per turn.

1= 1 infantry
2= 1 infantry,1 artillery
3= 2 infantry,1 artillery
4= 2 infantry,1 artillery, 1 mech
5= 3 infantry,1 artillery, 1 mech, 1 tank
6= 3 infantry,1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer

Note: Sahara, Afghanistan, Mongolia, and Himalayan Territory cannot be entered by any units.

Some people made them into technology, but i like them just as new pieces. and Table tactics makes mines already.

Well a couple of things:

Spain should be at 4IPC: 4 inf, 1 ARM ,1 art, 1 fighter, 1 DD, 1 AP
Turkey at 3: 4 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Art, 1 AP
Arabia at 2: 1 INf
Sweden at 3: 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, 1 AP
each South American nation gets 2 Inf, and each African neutral gets 1 Inf

Sweden provides 1 IPC to Germany each turn as aid as long as they are neutral
Spain can loan out its armor division representing the blue division to Germany while neutral.

Diplomatic is done like Technology except you cant buy it: each side targets one ally per turn and its converted on a roll of 6. If its converted you pay IPC equal in cost to value and then you can use the forces, but you dont collect any money. The only way to collect income is by direct occupation and violate its neutrality.

Either side allies or axis can do this at any time, but you must defeat all its land forces. If it has any leftover naval or air they can be ‘interned’ by the other side and converted (replaced) with its own pieces.

problem solved easily.

yep

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”